Page images


The following documents and exhibits were submitted by WMATA in response to the following questions from the subcommittees, with pages where replies are found noted in parentheses, as indicated.


Washington, D.C., November 18, 1975.
Re Submissions for the Record.
Memorandum from: Michael Nevens, Majority Star Consultant, Subcommittee

on Fiscal Affairs. To: Warren Quenstedt, Deputy General Manager, WMATA.

The attached list is a partial list of questions that need to be answered in writing by WMATA for the hearing record. This list is not official nor is it complete.

An official and complete list will be transmitted by appropriate cover letter in the near future. The attached list should allow the necessary work to begin in preparing the written submissions.

1. For each contract in FY '76, '77 and '78 programs provide: February '69 estimate, November '74 estimate and the most current design estimate, and the date of that estimate. (p. 699)

2. For each contract let prior to FY '76 provide: the February '69 estimate, November '74 estimate, the accepted bid, and any claims accepted above the bid price. (p. 707)

3. For each contract in Fiscal years beyond FY '78 the same data as in #1. (p. 718)

4. For phase 1 through 7 provide the most current estimates for: the date operations will commence, the number of miles operational, the number of cars and stations operational. Also provide the February '69 estimate for this data. (p. 725)

5. Supply a summary, by month, of sources and uses of internally generated funds. (p. 754)

6. Supply a summary of highway funds received, by route, indicating the unescalated amount and the dollar escalation allowed. (p. 758)

7. Supply a copy of the detailed plan for a bus feeder system submitted by the director of planning in January of this year. (p. 759)

8. Submit supporting documentation and analysis for the 15% contingency estimate. (p. 881)

9. Supply a copy of the maintenance agreement with Rohr. (p. 885)

10. Supply FY '75 financial performance v8 budget at a reasonable level of detail for all funds controlled by WMATA. (p. 886)

11. Provide a description of the FY '75 rail construction program goals and your progress against these. (pp. 888, 1637)

12. Provide detailed support for the $57 million increase necessary to reach the $4.65 billion total cost. (p. 889)

13. Submit supporting documentation for the 37% fuel price inflation rate. (p. 890)

14. Submit documentation of your consultation with GAO, DOT and UMTA concerning your selection of 15% as a contingency factor. (p. 891)

15. Submit documentation of your consultations with UMTA regarding the capitalization of rail start-up costs. (p. 896)

16. Submit copies of the Ernst & Ernst Management letter for the last three (3) years. (p. 899)

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

8. Please explain the “de-programining" of $94 million from FY '75 in the Metro capital budget summary. (p. 1189)

9. Please submit a reconciliation of the Metro Office of Budget 11/10/75 Re. vision Number 2 capital budget summary and statements 15 and 16 of the Sep tember Comptroller's report? (p. 1189)

10. Please explain why the Transition Quarter Funding of $26.7 million was included in FY '78 instead of FY '77. (Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 1190)

11. To date, only $286.6 million of the $476 million in “Highway Fund Transfer" have been transferred to the Authority. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the funds to be transferred and the funds already transferred. (Include Route, Base Amount, Dollar Escalation and Total) (pp. 1190, 1192)

12. When and under what conditions does the Authority expect to receive the second phase of Interstate Highway transfer funds which the District of Columbia is withholding? (p. 1193)

DOT POLICY 1. Please supply the average operating speed, the average headways, average expected trip lengths, average vehicle occupancy, fleet utilization, fares as seen for the rail system in 1972 and 1975. (p. 1271)

2. Please submit a summary of your inputs to the submission to the Washington Area phased implementation plan for improving efficiency of transit services under section (5) (d) (a) of the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974. (p. 1276)


1. On May 29, the Transit Authority approved an advance to Rohr of $22.5 million to help assure timely delivery of the cars. Please detail the current status of the advance payment and provide the Committee with a reconciliation of the original delivery schedule with the currently anticipated schedule, and show the effect that the currently anticipated schedule will have on the liquidation of the advance. (p. 1283)

2. Will Rohr's current litigation with the BART system in anyway affect the delivery schedule? (p. 1294)

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS 1. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on regional taxes. (p. 1194)

2. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on driving disincentives, e.g., parking spaces, gasoline taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. (p. 1267)

3. Submit a complete schedule of local payments, noting those that will require a bond issue or additional local legislation. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. (pp. 1200, 1229, 1294)

4. Land around a proposed Vienna subway stop was rezoned to increase its value as a means of cutting Fairfax County's financial obligation to Metro. What action has the Authority taken to assure this does not happen in the future? Please include a description of the process Metro uses in acquiring land. (p. 1268)


1. Describe how the fare structure fits into the marketing plan. (p. 1294)

2. Describe how special and charter services and services to special events and district areas fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1294)

3. Describe how promotions and promotional fares and material fit into the marketing plan. (pp. 1295, 1303)

4. Describe how services to distant areas, special events and population centers fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1296)

5. Submit a comparison of marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures before and after submission to the Director of Budget, Comptroller/General Manager, and Board. (p. 1296)

6. Provide a comparison of some of the larger transit systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles) marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures and revenues and explain any material differences in marketing department structure. (pp. 1297, 1327)

7. Describe how media is selected for various promotions. (p. 1298)


Washington, D.C., November 24, 1975.
Re Partial List of Submissions for Hearing Record.
Memorandum From: Michael Nevens, Majority Staff Consultant; David Patch,

Minority Staff Assistant To: Warren Quenstedt.

The attached is a second partial list of questions submitted in writing by members and staff of the Fiscal Affairs Subcommittee and Housing, Commerce, and Transportation Subcommittee for a response in writing from WMATA for the hearing record. This list is not official and not complete.

As stated before, an official and complete list will be transmitted by appropriate cover letter in the near future. It is hoped that this partial list will facilitate the preparation of written submissions.


1. Submit percentage of buses idle during the base-day. (p. 912)

2. Submit percentage of labor force unused during the base-day (total man. hours per day unused but paid for). (p. 912)

3. Submit percentage of labor force working split shifts. (p. 913)

4. Please submit your comments on the attached staff estimates of Metro's deficits from FY 75 to FY 80. (p. 914)

5. Please submit a description of work rules determining the movement of drivers and maintenance employees between bus and rail. (p. 918)

6. Please detail for the record the negotiating process with jurisdictions through which subsidy levels are set. (p. 920)

7. Please submit the minutes of WMATA Board Meetings at which METROPEPCO problems were discussed. (p. 921)

8. Please submit a range of estimates as to the amount of subsidies required from local governments, assuming the currently proposed fare structure is operational in 1982. (p. 1183)

9. Please submit the Senate study regarding use of Dulles access road for Metro. (p. 1184)

10. Please submit the percentage of the bus fleet immobile daily along with comparable data from other transit authorities. (p. 1184)

11. Please submit the average length of immobilization for buses and the average (mean) time between immobilization periods along with comparable data from other transit authorities. (p. 1184)


1. In their July report, the GAO found that the Authority underestimated their program for 1976 by $312 million. Please provide estimates of the FY '76 and FY '77 programs reconciling this amount on a contract-by-contract basis. (p. 1184)

2. In the Authority's August program control report, an increase in the total system cost of $139.9 million was reported. Please comment on the source of this increase. Was any part of the increase from contracts not yet obligated ? (p. 1187)

3. What changes were made in the contracts programmed for FY '77 and FY '78 since the Airlie meeting of November 1974 and what were the reasons for these changes? (p. 1187)

4. Explain how the revenue bonds were issued, how the interest is paid, and who is liable for the debt service. (p. 1187)

5. Are add-ons and facilities for the handicapped included in the $4.651 billion estimate? Please provide a breakout of these amounts. (p. 1188)

6. The August and September comptroller's report (statement 16) shows $30 and $151 million, respectively, as available for obligation and commitment. Between the two reports you received $286.6 million in an UMTA grant (highway transfer) and $11.2 million in internally generated funds. (Total=$297.8 million) You show a net increase in obligations and commitments for the same period of $272 million. (p. 1189)

It would seem that the increase in available funds of $121 million and the increase of obligations and commitments of $272 million totals $393 million or $117 million more than the new funds received. Please reconcile these statements.

7. Please explain why the amount for FY '79 and beyond in the Metro capital budget, (Office of Budget, 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 2) has been reduced from the Airlie program. (p. 1189)

« PreviousContinue »